You are trying to make a case for a socialist intrusion on a Libertarian site. Some posters on here do not think roads, cops, and fire should be socialized much less medical care. In one thread I have people ticked off at me because I had the audacity to offer that Marx was right about wealth pooling in the hands of the rich in a laissez faire market. At the worst this means I am acknowledging a flaw in a system I support but they are acting like I just read a passage from Das Kapital.

Setting aside the political difficulties of the specifics for a moment, I am extremely vexed by the behavior surrounding the issue. The Dems tried to ram this through without anyone noticing. If they were so certain the majority of the nation would support this plan why did they try to implement it covertly? This is no small investment they are asking us to make. In fact it will likely be one of the largest, if not the largest, entitlement programs we have financed or ever will. Trying to sneak a shoddy, incomplete, and reckless bill through Congress in an effort to implement it without legitimate examination of the effects by experts, much less the public, was criminal and undermined confidence in its legitimacy from the very beginning.

A great deal of controversy has been generated by Obama being called a liar when he said that the plan does not cover illegal aliens. President Obama pointed out that the bill specifically prohibits use by illegal aliens while failing to mention that his Democratic brethren have repeatedly fought back Republican efforts to include an enforcement section to the bill. As it stands the only thing an illegal alien has to do to get treatment is say, “I am an American” in his language of choice and he gets free health care out of my wallet.

My next question is out of the 47 million “Americans” that lack health care, what percentage of these are illegal aliens? PEW puts the number at 12 million so that would be around a quarter and some of the more aggressive boarder control sites indicate the number could be as high as 30 million which is more than 60%. So we are going to scrape and redesign our current system so we can cover people that do not belong here in the first place?

In addition to this I have to wonder how many of these uninsured are people that lack insurance intentionally because they do not want to pay the premium or are young adults just breaking into the job market that are unemployed or underemployed in addition to being uninsured or underinsured. Not having cash and benefits is a perpetual state when you are working at the local burger or pizza place. I managed a Little Caesar’s so I could pay for college. Lousy pay. No benefits. If you would have offered me benefits or a raise I would have taken the raise. I didn’t need a doctor. I needed money for gas, books, classes, and chicks.

In addition to this I fail to see the wisdom in completely scrapping something and reinventing the wheel when the current system works for 85% of the nation while providing the best health care on the planet. When someone needs state-of-the-art health care you do not see them flying into England, France, or Germany, they fly to the US.

Even if 15% of the nation is not covered under the current system and we could deal with that by implementing a limited health care system that is based on a valid Social Security Card. All it would take is presenting your SS card or a valid document that proves you are in the country legally to a doctor or hospital and you could get at least limited treatment.

I also have to wonder what sort of health care the US Government is capable of providing. As I pointed out in my previous post the Vet Hospitals are not exactly the apex of medical treatment in this country even with a third of the budget being spent on the military. I have friends that have first hand experience with long drives, long waits, poor care, incompetent doctors, and constant bureaucratic restrictions.

One had a half-ton air conditioning unit dropped on his knee from some sort of artillery unit which left him using a cane. They keep denying him an operation that would allow him full use of his leg because “It is not damaged enough to justify the surgery.” His doctor put his condition at “90%” of what it would take to justify the operation. If this is how we treat someone that put his life on the line for this nation what is going to happen to the average citizen when going to the doctor is like going to the DMV?

In addition to the above I am also concerned about getting approval for a procedure. As it stands if I am denied treatment I can sue the insurance company and force them to pay for legitimate treatment but I cannot do that with the government because they have sovereign immunity. If so bureaucrat at Cigna says no to a multi-million dollar heart procedure for my daughter and she dies then I sue them into Chapter 11. If some Federal Cube Dweller says no and she dies they claim sovereign immunity and I get to pay for the funeral.

These are only a few of the problems I have with universal health care that need to be addressed before I am convinced it is viable alternative to what we currently have. Once they have a realistic plan on a par with the status quo we can debate the socialistic implications of the government competing with or replacing the public sector. For right now that’s the least of my concerns.

Mr. Mantyla,

You are trying to make a case for a socialist intrusion on a Libertarian site. Some posters on here do not think roads, cops, and fire should be socialized much less medical care. In one thread I have people ticked off at me because I had the audacity to offer that Marx was right about wealth pooling in the hands of the rich in a laissez faire market. At the worst this means I am acknowledging a flaw in a system I support but they are acting like I just read a passage from Das Kapital.

Setting aside the political difficulties of the specifics for a moment, I am extremely vexed by the behavior surrounding the issue. The Dems tried to ram this through without anyone noticing. If they were so certain the majority of the nation would support this plan why did they try to implement it covertly? This is no small investment they are asking us to make. In fact it will likely be one of the largest, if not the largest, entitlement programs we have financed or ever will. Trying to sneak a shoddy, incomplete, and reckless bill through Congress in an effort to implement it without legitimate examination of the effects by experts, much less the public, was criminal and undermined confidence in its legitimacy from the very beginning.

A great deal of controversy has been generated by Obama being called a liar when he said that the plan does not cover illegal aliens. President Obama pointed out that the bill specifically prohibits use by illegal aliens while failing to mention that his Democratic brethren have repeatedly fought back Republican efforts to include an enforcement section to the bill. As it stands the only thing an illegal alien has to do to get treatment is say, “I am an American” in his language of choice and he gets free health care out of my wallet.

My next question is out of the 47 million “Americans” that lack health care, what percentage of these are illegal aliens? PEW puts the number at 12 million so that would be around a quarter and some of the more aggressive boarder control sites indicate the number could be as high as 30 million which is more than 60%. So we are going to scrape and redesign our current system so we can cover people that do not belong here in the first place?

In addition to this I have to wonder how many of these uninsured are people that lack insurance intentionally because they do not want to pay the premium or are young adults just breaking into the job market that are unemployed or underemployed in addition to being uninsured or underinsured. Not having cash and benefits is a perpetual state when you are working at the local burger or pizza place. I managed a Little Caesar’s so I could pay for college. Lousy pay. No benefits. If you would have offered me benefits or a raise I would have taken the raise. I didn’t need a doctor. I needed money for gas, books, classes, and chicks.

In addition to this I fail to see the wisdom in completely scrapping something and reinventing the wheel when the current system works for 85% of the nation while providing the best health care on the planet. When someone needs state-of-the-art health care you do not see them flying into England, France, or Germany, they fly to the US.

Even if 15% of the nation is not covered under the current system and we could deal with that by implementing a limited health care system that is based on a valid Social Security Card. All it would take is presenting your SS card or a valid document that proves you are in the country legally to a doctor or hospital and you could get at least limited treatment.

I also have to wonder what sort of health care the US Government is capable of providing. As I pointed out in my previous post the Vet Hospitals are not exactly the apex of medical treatment in this country even with a third of the budget being spent on the military. I have friends that have first hand experience with long drives, long waits, poor care, incompetent doctors, and constant bureaucratic restrictions.

One had a half-ton air conditioning unit dropped on his knee from some sort of artillery unit which left him using a cane. They keep denying him an operation that would allow him full use of his leg because “It is not damaged enough to justify the surgery.” His doctor put his condition at “90%” of what it would take to justify the operation. If this is how we treat someone that put his life on the line for this nation what is going to happen to the average citizen when going to the doctor is like going to the DMV?

In addition to the above I am also concerned about getting approval for a procedure. As it stands if I am denied treatment I can sue the insurance company and force them to pay for legitimate treatment but I cannot do that with the government because they have sovereign immunity. If so bureaucrat at Cigna says no to a multi-million dollar heart procedure for my daughter and she dies then I sue them into Chapter 11. If some Federal Cube Dweller says no and she dies they claim sovereign immunity and I get to pay for the funeral.

These are only a few of the problems I have with universal health care as it stands that need to be addressed before I am convinced it is viable alternative to what we currently have. Once they have a realistic plan on a par with the status quo we can debate the socialistic implications of the government competing with or replacing the public sector. For right now that’s the least of my concerns.

But the advantages of national health care and a “public option” for most people–especially those with little or no access to health care–far outweigh those drawbacks.

The rich, the well-off or those who are employed can always get their own medical care or insurance, or negotiate it with employers. Trade unions traditionally do this very well for their members.

47 million Americans have no access or very poor access to health care. (These numbers since the recession are now estimated at far higher–and the’re rising.)

Why have American morals and so-called “family values” been ignored in the debate on this issue?

It is absolutely unfair to bankrupt poor and middle-income Americans for health care–then deny them the benefits they’ve paid for!–simply so that CEOs can make billions, collectively, in bonuses and salaries.

In the street that’s called theft. On Wall Street it’s called the “free market.”

In this case, the insurance companies have been allowed the “freedom” to steal from those who can least afford it, as well as leave them to die in some cases. If an ordinary person did that, they’d be imprisoned immediately. It’s not only immoral and un-American, it should be illegal.

Why is anyone defending this unjust, corrupt system? Because they are paid very well to do so, and this includes Congress and lobbyists.

A public option is the best way to keep insurance companies honest–when they have to compete with fairness.

The “free market” is NOT the only or best answer to all problems–unless of course, you’re a CEO in a position to take advantage of others–even when it means they die young and sick while you earn millions, quite literally over their dead bodies.

The public option is not “socialized medicine.” That’s a fear-mongering term used to politicize and galvanize support (on false pretenses) for an issue that is actually about morality, fairness and compassion. And if it is “socialized,” we should be all for it anyway–because it’s the right thing to do.

We support police and fire services, even though most of us rarely use them. That’s a truly socialized aspect of our culture that conservatives and liberals readily support. The same should be true of health insurance.

To further clarify this last point, it’s the insurance that’s being reformed, not the medicine. We need to support fair and quick access to quality medical care for all, no matter how it’s paid for and distributed.

Here’s a stark example of how this works: Would you allow your child, friend or neighbor to bleed to death for lack of insurance? If you were a doctor, would you refuse them treatment unless they paid, and paid up front? If someone gave you millions of dollars to let someone else bleed to death, would you take it?

If you’re an insurance company, you have the option to answer “yes” to all of the above–and you frequently do, just to make more money. This is the pathetic, depraved, barbaric, inhumane–one might say “Roman”–status quo in American health care and health insurance today, 2009.

Not only do we need reform, we desperately need it.

The bottom line: No “public option” leaves out 47 million Americans to bleed to death, stay hurt, die early and painfully like animals in the wild.

Support the humane, public option. Change the corrupt, redundant and cruel American health care system to one that reflects the humane and compassionate values most Americans claim that they support.

I am glad you have had success with the Canadian health care system. The thing you need to understand is that the US government already runs a model of what the universal health care system might look like in the form of Veteran’s Administration (VA) hospitals.

A shining example of the VA system is Walter Reid Medical Center. Once held up as the crown jewel of the VA system, investigations showed it to be toxic-mold infested and vermin ridden lacking even basic security to the point drug deals were taking place in the lobby. It was so bad that patients had to stand watch in shifts so the gravely ill did not have to worry about being victimized. Defense spending in the US is legendary consuming around a third of our annual budget but even with access to such massive resources they couldn’t keep their premiere hospital in reasonable order much less pristine condition.

The problem is that VA health care is hamstrung by a maze of rules and regulations where the doctor spends more time trying to comply with bureaucratic drivel designed to categorize prognosis and compartmentalize treatment than they do attending their patient. The first priority of any doctor should be to the future of the person under his care not some administrative tome.

Perhaps we should be ashamed that every US citizen is not covered by some sort of health care, but this does not mean that we should restart with a completely different system entirely, especially with a system that was rushed and most Congressmen have not read it.

Obamacare nationalizes one seventh of the US economy. I think it deserves far more research and debate before it is implemented because in its current incarnation it is far more likely to do more harm than good.

I’m glad you enjoy the healthcare in Canada. But, of all the examples you give, none had anything to do with a serious long-term disease like cancer. That’s where the wait times count.